K.Indrani Vs The Inspector General of Registration

K.Indrani vs The Inspector General of Registration

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 29, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1413516

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1413516
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Decided On: Jan 29, 2026
Case Number: WP/1005/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K.Indrani

Respondent

The Inspector General of Registration

Excerpt

.....husband on 22.08.2011, the petitioner complains of the subsequent registration of a settlement deed by the third respondent in favour of her husband on 28.10.2025 under document no.4726 of 2025. after submitting a representation to the first respondent to take action against the second and third respondents in relation thereto, the present writ petition has been filed.2. mr.u.baranidharan, learned special government pleader,accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. by referring to the petitioner’s representation dated 09.12.2025, he submits that the said representation reveals that the petitioner has not approached this court bona fide. he points out that there are contradictions in the said representation.3. in effect, the petitioner seeks cancellation of documentno.4726 of 2025 which was allegedly executed by suppressing the earlier conveyance in favour of the petitioner’s husband. thus, there appears to be a title dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional civil court.4. for reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of byleaving it open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional civil court. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. there shall be no order as to costs. index:yes/no mmi tosenthilkumar ramamoorthy,j.mmi

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and W.M.P. No.1193 of 2026 K.Indrani .. Petitioner vs 3.Lakshmi .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to take action against the respondents 2 and 3 by disposing the written representation made by the petitioner on 09.12.2025 within a stipulated time. For Petitioner : Ms.P.Dhaarani for Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2

ORDER

By asserting that a settlement deed was executed in respect of the properties described in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit in favour of the petitioner’s husband on 22.08.2011, the petitioner complains of the subsequent registration of a settlement deed by the third respondent in favour of her husband on 28.10.2025 under Document No.4726 of 2025. After submitting a representation to the first respondent to take action against the second and third respondents in relation thereto, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader,

accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. By referring to the petitioner’s representation dated 09.12.2025, he submits that the said representation reveals that the petitioner has not approached this Court bona fide. He points out that there are contradictions in the said representation.

3. In effect, the petitioner seeks cancellation of Document

No.4726 of 2025 which was allegedly executed by suppressing the earlier conveyance in favour of the petitioner’s husband. Thus, there appears to be a title dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court.

4. For reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of by

leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Index:Yes/No mmi To

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

mmi

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties K.Indrani vs The Inspector General of Registration Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy